waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
I think their argument is that the players weren't aware of the dangers but the administrators were or at least ought to have been & failed to make the players aware or make the game safer until much more recently.
Concussions and Protecting Our Players
- Thread starter USARugger
- Start date
hifflepiff
Charlie Fox (21)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most CTE symptoms the result of repeated minor knocks rather than major head collisions?
This is an aspect of the discussion about 'crackdowns' and reds making the game safer that has made it feel disingenuous to me, at least on WR (World Rugby)'s part.
This is an aspect of the discussion about 'crackdowns' and reds making the game safer that has made it feel disingenuous to me, at least on WR (World Rugby)'s part.
Dismal Pillock
David Codey (61)
Exactly.
Think I read there were 500 tackles in a Leinster match recently. There really is no way to sanitise the sport without turning it into touch.
I just think of it as insulting by brain-damaged players who were happy to take the huge salaries for years and years to then do a 180 heel turn swivel and say fuck you rugby pay me I didnt know this would happen you should have told me u c**nts.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
It depends what you think World Rugby is genuine about.
I think World Rugby genuinely doesn't want to give out any more money in these payouts than they have to....these cards and suspensions are a major part of the defence that they did everything possible to protect players.
hifflepiff
Charlie Fox (21)
This imo, is the main reason WR (World Rugby) will never accept a 20 min red card internationally, regardless of if whether it's shown to be an equivalent deterrence to high tackles.
The main point of this "crackdown on head contact" isn't to protect players as WR (World Rugby) claims, but to protect WR (World Rugby) from having to pay out the arse for player settlements like the NFL.
Anything that might be viewed as WR (World Rugby) taking a step back from deterring head contact (regardless of whether it actually is or not) might open them up to massive legal problems down the road.
I wouldn't mind if WR (World Rugby) was honest about this being the reason, but what I can't stand is the moralising from some (NH) corners about Australia and NZ 'putting entertainment at the expense of player safety'.
Progressive Rugby statement: Seven-point plan to make rugby safer
Concussion awareness group Progressive Rugby have called on World Rugby to fast-track an urgent player welfare package into the elite game.
www.rugbypass.com
Thoughts
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Irrespective of their proposed changes, I think this is a noteworthy pointProgressive Rugby statement: Seven-point plan to make rugby safer
Concussion awareness group Progressive Rugby have called on World Rugby to fast-track an urgent player welfare package into the elite game.
Thoughts
Last edited:
“In the elite game players no longer seem coached to evade the opposition but rather to physically dominate them by running into and over them. But sadly, while elite players’ bodies have transformed to better dish out and withstand these colossal impacts, their brains have remained just as vulnerable as ever.”
It's a tricky one because trying to get past a tackler and getting tackled in a pretty conventional low tackle where you end up going straight to ground on the defensive side of the gain line is a prime opportunity to get isolated and have the ball turned over.
It's a tricky one because trying to get past a tackler and getting tackled in a pretty conventional low tackle where you end up going straight to ground on the defensive side of the gain line is a prime opportunity to get isolated and have the ball turned over.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Of course, but I don't think the suggestion is around running 30m across the field for 5m forward like it's 7s or League; it's about a shift in some players' decision making from making strong contact through tackles (i.e. hitting holes between tacklers) towards attempting to run straight over people.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Which is the point Progressive Rugby is making
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
Shane Tuck's sister says brain disease, not mental ill-health, was the cause of her brother's death
Several past AFL players have been diagnosed with the deadly brain injury CTE, including Richmond footballer Shane Tuck. His family is now committed to raising awareness and helping other families affected by the disease.
www.abc.net.au
bleak reading. Never shown signs of mental illness, develops CTE, hears voices that 'aren't very nice' which eventually consumed his mind, suicides at 38.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Extremely bleak, and sadly I imagine similar articles are only going to become more common. Such valuable work being done by Dr Buckland and Brain Bank
Shane Tuck's sister says brain disease, not mental ill-health, was the cause of her brother's death
Several past AFL players have been diagnosed with the deadly brain injury CTE, including Richmond footballer Shane Tuck. His family is now committed to raising awareness and helping other families affected by the disease.
bleak reading. Never shown signs of mental illness, develops CTE, hears voices that 'aren't very nice' which eventually consumed his mind, suicides at 38.
What are Guardian Caps? NFL’s latest head protection device makes debut at training camp
In March 2022, NFL club owners passed a resolution that mandates using Guardian Caps during certain portions of the training camp when concussions and head contact typically elevate.
www.sportskeeda.com
They are meant to reduce the impact by 20% if both players are wearing one.
They are designed to mitigate "subconcussive" hits so I think the thought is (like rugby headgear) that they won't prevent a concussion but they will lessen smaller impacts (which is more thought where CTE is likely to stem from).
It's largely about testing at the moment as there isn't a lot of data behind them as this is the first year they have been mandated.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Just going off basic physics, I can't see how they can prevent a brain's inertia from suddenly being stopped. I still don't understand why the NFL just don't get rid of helmets - as soon as players feel their head being more vulnerable, maybe they'd stop using it as a force when tackling and running.
They reduce the force slightly because the impact is spread out over a slightly longer period of time as the foam compresses. It is minimal (10% from each set of headgear resulting in a 20% reduction suggested above seems reasonable).